As originally conceived, the ACD excluded cognate sets that are confined to the Formosan languages. Since Taiwan is a relatively small island that has been inhabited by Austronesian speaking peoples for at least 5,500 years, it was felt that early loanwords that have spread fairly widely among the languages might be difficult to distinguish from forms that were actually present in PAN. I have now reversed that decision on the grounds that it causes too many interesting and potentially valuable comparisons to be ignored. Cognate sets that are fairly widely distributed among Formosan languages belonging to different primary branches of Austronesian are now taken as evidence for PAN etyma. The only cases where I have maintained the original policy is where a cognate set is restricted to geographically contiguous languages and the probability of borrowing cannot easily be excluded. However, given the greater likelihood that undetected early loans might be attributed to PAN if they are attested only in Formosan languages, I have distinguished 'Formosan-only’ cognate sets as a separate module of the ACD.

Note: Although Bununmadas appears to be an affixed form of a base /adas/ Jeng (1972) gives the base as /madas/ because of affixed forms like /madas-in/. It is unclear whether the same is true of Saisiyat.

Note: Also YamiIvatanakay, Isnegakáy, Agta (Dupaningan)kakay ‘grandfather’. With unexplained postconsonantal glottal stop in Tsou. Since a non-problematic reflex of *aki is not available in at least two primary branches of Austronesian this might be considered a ‘near comparison’. However, since it is found next to the doublet *baki, which can be reconstructed without issues it is posited here.